Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39018549›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2024

Ethics of the Use of Social Media as Training Data for AI Models Used for Digital Phenotyping.

Aditi Jaiswal, Aekta Shah, Christopher Harjadi, Erik Windgassen, Peter Washington

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. With qualitative research, the risks of data sharing can outweigh the rewards.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Hashtag2Action: Data Engineering and Self-Supervised Pre-Training for Action Recognition in Short-Form Videos.... IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision workshops. IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Aditi JaiswalDepartment of Information and Computer Sciences, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, HI, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1367-818X
Aekta ShahSalesforce, San Francisco, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-0117-0982
Christopher HarjadiDepartment of Computer Science, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4084-2208
Erik WindgassenDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, University of California, Riverside, Riverside, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-1220-5734
Peter WashingtonDepartment of Information and Computer Sciences, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, HI, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3276-4411

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Digital phenotyping, or personal sensing, is a field of research that seeks to quantify traits and characteristics of people using digital technologies, usually for health care purposes. In this commentary, we discuss emerging ethical issues regarding the use of social media as training data for artificial intelligence (AI) models used for digital phenotyping. In particular, we describe the ethical need for explicit consent from social media users, particularly in cases where sensitive information such as labels related to neurodiversity are scraped. We also advocate for the use of community-based participatory design principles when developing health care AI models using social media data.

Indexed as

consentethicsmachine learningresearch ethicsscientific integritysocial media analytics

Identifiers

PMID39018549
PMCPMC11292144

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.